HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 51154 of 2011 Petitioner :- Munna Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- A.P.Paul,B.B.Paul Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.
Heard Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner is challenging the suspension order dated 19.8.2011. He has been suspended on the ground that he has violated certain Government Rules in the appointment of 49 Class IV employees in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad. The petitioner is a Senior Clerk.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for filling up 49 posts of Class IV employees, an advertisement was made by the Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad. Several persons applied for the post but when the result has not been declared they approached this Court by way of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32993 of 2009, which has been disposed of vide order dated 13.5.2010 directing the respondent to declare the result of the petitioners pursuant to the interview held from 25.2.2009 to 28.2.2009 expeditiously. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the District Magistrate, Moradabad wrote a letter dated 16.6.2010 to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Services, Government of U.P., Lucknow. In paragraph-4 of the said order, it is observed that without taking prior permission from the Government Health Department and Director General, Medical and Health Services, U.P., Lucknow the proceeding for filling up 49 posts for Group-D employees has been initiated for which there was no justification and despite that the Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad on 2.2.2009 has issued an advertisement for filling up 49 posts. It is further observed that how the vacant posts have been determined is not clear from the file.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed today annexing a copy of the office memorandum dated 30.6.2011 by which the then Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad Dr. Rajesh Kumar Saxena has only been granted censored entry for his illegal action. He submitted that with reference to the same cause, now the petitioner has been suspended. He submitted that Rule 4 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 provides that a Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the Appointing Authority. Proviso to said Rule provides that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty. He submitted that for the illegal act of the Chief Medical Officer as alleged by the District Magistrate he has been awarded censure entry and for the same cause the petitioner has been suspended. In view of the above, there is no case of any major penalty.
On the facts and circumstances, I find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner.
Let the learned Standing Counsel may file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, the operation of the order dated 19.8.2011, Annexure-10 to the writ petition, shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 13.9.2011 OP